Lewis Wolpert: Is science dangerous?

Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine, Anatomy, University College, London Session/Theme: Science, society and politics - public understanding of science Title of the presentation: Is science dangerous?

The idea that scientific knowledge is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture. Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and in Milton's Paradise Lost the serpent addresses the Tree as the 'Mother of Science'. There is a fear and distrust of science: genetic engineering and the supposed ethical issues it raises; the effect of science in diminishing our spiritual values even though many scientists are themselves religious; the fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear power; the impact of industry in despoiling the environment. While scientists are blamed for despoiling the environment and making us live in a high risk society it is only because of science that we know about these risks, such as global warming and BSE. Yet science provides the best way of understanding the world in a reliable, logical, quantitative, testable and elegant manner. Science is at the core of our culture, almost the main mode of thought that characterises our age. But, for many people, science is something rather remote and often difficult. Part of the problem is that almost all scientific explanations go against common sense, our natural expectations, for the world is just not built on a common sense basis. A serious problem is the conflation of science and technology. The distinction between science and technology, between knowledge and understanding on the one hand, and the application of that knowledge to making something, or using it in some practical way, is fundamental . Science produces ideas about how the world works , whereas the ideas in technology result in usable objects. But it is technology that generates ethical issues, from motor cars to cloning a human. In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. But are scientists for the technological applications of science? But the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. Cloning provides a nice example. It is not easy to find examples of scientists as a group behaving immorally or in a dangerous manner - BSE is not an example - but the classic was the eugenics movement. Much of the ethical concerns about genetics have no real foundation, and that includes stem cells. The obligation of scientists is to both make public any social implications of their work and its technological applications, and to give some assessment of its reliability.